This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Tryde, I have added the specific succession boxes and as you can see I have also transfered the already existing into the new and more flexible code (note for example the "with-parameter"). Another remark: In succession boxes regarding the Parliament of Ireland I generally use the ordinal with baronets (of course only if they have inherited at that time). Since baronets of one creation often share their christian name, this could/should help to avoid confusions and also make things a little bit more reasonable. If you have more questions, please give me a shout :-)
Thanks for all the hard work at List of Privy Counsellors (1952–present). I was just wondering why you are listing some peers by their titles and some by their actual names. Is it based on what name they used when they were admitted to the Privy Council? - Rrius ( talk) 10:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you hold off on the page moves and redirects please?-- Tznkai ( talk) 16:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
When a baronet is later created a peer, it is sensible to categorise him as a baronet as well as a peer, since he was actually awarded both titles and held both titles concurrently. This is not the same situation as, for instance, an OBE being upgraded to a KBE, when the latter actually supersedes the former. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 19:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I recently marked this disambiguation pg for cleanup. I hate to delete entries when I think they are notable, but without any links they should be removed. I just thought I'd let you know, in case you know about these people and would consider making them into stubs. Best wishes, Boleyn2 ( talk) 19:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Any reason why you created two pages about the same person? -- T'Shael MindMeld 08:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
They seem to have been styled Lord Arthur Hill, Lord Marcus Hill and Lord Augustus Hill. We also seem to have Lord Trevor's name wrong - he was styled Lord Edwin Hill before being ennobled. And yes, it was the 3rd Baron (as Lord Marcus Hill, MP for Evesham) who was Comptroller and then Treasurer. Proteus (Talk) 11:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
A heartfelt thanks for all the new articles on peers. You churn them out so fast that I've got "new pages by User:Tryde" bookmarked so I can patrol them all :). I've written articles on a few peers myself, but the rate at which you fill this gap in Wikipedia's coverage is bloody amazing. Keep up the good work :). Ironholds ( talk) 15:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tryde, I do not understand your redirection of Richard Trench? Not that you don't have a good reason; just curious. Daytrivia ( talk) 17:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Tryde. You seem to have completely undone the work I did on Viscount St Davids the other day, but not given any explanation. Was this an oversight? (I see you've edited a lot of peerage articles over the weekend) If you intended it, please would you explain why it is better than what I created. Thanks -- ColinFine ( talk) 19:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Why are you reverting scores of painstakingly created articles without notification or apparent authorization? I am going to bring this matter to WP:ANI if I do not receive an answer. Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 15:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thats not the point. They belong to the legislature and therefore be relevant. Max Mux ( talk) 17:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem. The reverting was also not a problem; WP:BOLD comes into effect. If the user in question had followed the usual avenues the problem wouldn't have arisen - as it is, I place all blame for the blowup on his shoulders for failing to discuss things with you, failing to inform you that you were being discussed at ANI and posting a hasty and badly thought-out rant at ANI while acknowledging that his anger was affecting his judgement. Your actions were not sufficient to result in an ANI thread, and if the current discussion at WP:BIO goes our way, that sort of blowup shouldn't be a problem for much longer :). Ironholds ( talk) 14:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I've started a little infernal voting thing to get a clearer view of how people stand and if we've got consensus either way. Regards, Ironholds ( talk) 04:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I know, and it is unfortunate. However, the policy on RSs and verifiability is quite clear at WP:SPS, particularly "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". Ironholds ( talk) 09:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
That would be stupid. Both peers are definitely notable and their bigraphies shouldn't be in a list. Max Mux ( talk) 15:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
First warning: if you again change back an edit without explanation you'll be reported to Wikipedia:Vandalism Max Mux ( talk) 15:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Second warning! Max Mux ( talk) 16:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you do! Max Mux ( talk) 16:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
No. You violate Wikipwedia guidelines. Please stop. Max Mux ( talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have you and User:Max Mux reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Tryde_and_Max_Mux_reported_by_Phoe_.28Result:_.29
I've blocked you for 12h for misc edit warring. Quite which of you and M are most in the wrong I haven't bothered to find out, but please stop William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Pardon? You have ruined it all. Max Mux ( talk) 10:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The articles. Without explanation. You should have been blocked alone but now to make me responsible? Maybe we should speak with a mediator if you are not willing to talk normarly to me. Max Mux ( talk) 10:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not. Don't try to make fun of my costs. Max Mux ( talk) 10:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Is that a real question? Max Mux ( talk) 14:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, the language! Max Mux ( talk) 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Tryde, I have added the specific succession boxes and as you can see I have also transfered the already existing into the new and more flexible code (note for example the "with-parameter"). Another remark: In succession boxes regarding the Parliament of Ireland I generally use the ordinal with baronets (of course only if they have inherited at that time). Since baronets of one creation often share their christian name, this could/should help to avoid confusions and also make things a little bit more reasonable. If you have more questions, please give me a shout :-)
Thanks for all the hard work at List of Privy Counsellors (1952–present). I was just wondering why you are listing some peers by their titles and some by their actual names. Is it based on what name they used when they were admitted to the Privy Council? - Rrius ( talk) 10:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you hold off on the page moves and redirects please?-- Tznkai ( talk) 16:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
When a baronet is later created a peer, it is sensible to categorise him as a baronet as well as a peer, since he was actually awarded both titles and held both titles concurrently. This is not the same situation as, for instance, an OBE being upgraded to a KBE, when the latter actually supersedes the former. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 19:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I recently marked this disambiguation pg for cleanup. I hate to delete entries when I think they are notable, but without any links they should be removed. I just thought I'd let you know, in case you know about these people and would consider making them into stubs. Best wishes, Boleyn2 ( talk) 19:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Any reason why you created two pages about the same person? -- T'Shael MindMeld 08:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
They seem to have been styled Lord Arthur Hill, Lord Marcus Hill and Lord Augustus Hill. We also seem to have Lord Trevor's name wrong - he was styled Lord Edwin Hill before being ennobled. And yes, it was the 3rd Baron (as Lord Marcus Hill, MP for Evesham) who was Comptroller and then Treasurer. Proteus (Talk) 11:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
A heartfelt thanks for all the new articles on peers. You churn them out so fast that I've got "new pages by User:Tryde" bookmarked so I can patrol them all :). I've written articles on a few peers myself, but the rate at which you fill this gap in Wikipedia's coverage is bloody amazing. Keep up the good work :). Ironholds ( talk) 15:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tryde, I do not understand your redirection of Richard Trench? Not that you don't have a good reason; just curious. Daytrivia ( talk) 17:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Tryde. You seem to have completely undone the work I did on Viscount St Davids the other day, but not given any explanation. Was this an oversight? (I see you've edited a lot of peerage articles over the weekend) If you intended it, please would you explain why it is better than what I created. Thanks -- ColinFine ( talk) 19:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Why are you reverting scores of painstakingly created articles without notification or apparent authorization? I am going to bring this matter to WP:ANI if I do not receive an answer. Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 15:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thats not the point. They belong to the legislature and therefore be relevant. Max Mux ( talk) 17:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem. The reverting was also not a problem; WP:BOLD comes into effect. If the user in question had followed the usual avenues the problem wouldn't have arisen - as it is, I place all blame for the blowup on his shoulders for failing to discuss things with you, failing to inform you that you were being discussed at ANI and posting a hasty and badly thought-out rant at ANI while acknowledging that his anger was affecting his judgement. Your actions were not sufficient to result in an ANI thread, and if the current discussion at WP:BIO goes our way, that sort of blowup shouldn't be a problem for much longer :). Ironholds ( talk) 14:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I've started a little infernal voting thing to get a clearer view of how people stand and if we've got consensus either way. Regards, Ironholds ( talk) 04:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I know, and it is unfortunate. However, the policy on RSs and verifiability is quite clear at WP:SPS, particularly "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". Ironholds ( talk) 09:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
That would be stupid. Both peers are definitely notable and their bigraphies shouldn't be in a list. Max Mux ( talk) 15:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
First warning: if you again change back an edit without explanation you'll be reported to Wikipedia:Vandalism Max Mux ( talk) 15:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Second warning! Max Mux ( talk) 16:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you do! Max Mux ( talk) 16:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
No. You violate Wikipwedia guidelines. Please stop. Max Mux ( talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have you and User:Max Mux reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Tryde_and_Max_Mux_reported_by_Phoe_.28Result:_.29
I've blocked you for 12h for misc edit warring. Quite which of you and M are most in the wrong I haven't bothered to find out, but please stop William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Pardon? You have ruined it all. Max Mux ( talk) 10:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The articles. Without explanation. You should have been blocked alone but now to make me responsible? Maybe we should speak with a mediator if you are not willing to talk normarly to me. Max Mux ( talk) 10:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not. Don't try to make fun of my costs. Max Mux ( talk) 10:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Is that a real question? Max Mux ( talk) 14:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, the language! Max Mux ( talk) 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |